6/21/00 11:18:44 PM
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 115692. May 12, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN TANOY, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Jjlex
Accused-appellant Edwin Tanoy was charged
with murder for the death of Ricardo L. Espinosa before the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36, in Criminal Case No. 37116. The Information
reads-
"That on or
about December 31, 1987 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, armed with an armalite rifle, with
deliberate intent and with decided purpose to kill, with treachery, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally shoot, hit and wound Ricardo L.
Espinosa with the said rifle which the accused provided himself at the time,
thereby causing upon said Ricardo L. Espinosa bullet wounds on vital parts of
his body which caused his death moments thereafter."
Accused-appellant pleaded "not
guilty" on arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.
The facts as found by the trial court are as
follows: On the night of December 30, 1987, in the course of an altercation,
accused-appellant pistol-whipped Eduardo Alo on the head. Alo sought refuge at
the house of retired Col. Ricardo L. Espinosa who at the time was the barangay
captain of Infante, Molo, Iloilo City. That evening, Alo was brought to the
hospital by Myrna Espinosa, daughter of Ricardo. Newmisox
At around 10:00 o’clock the following
morning, Ricardo Espinosa, Joel Kilayko and Bgy. Tanod Ruben Segutier went to
the police station at Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City to report the incident between
accused-appellant and Alo. When Espinosa was about to hand over the brown
envelope containing the complaint against accused-appellant to the desk
sergeant, accused-appellant P/Sgt. Edwin Tanoy, who was also inside the office
of the desk sergeant, brusquely asked Espinosa: "Why are you running
after me?" to which Espinosa replied: "We will just settle
these things before the police."
Accused-appellant then grabbed the armalite
rifle of the desk sergeant lying on the table and pointed the same at Espinosa,
saying, "Later, I will kill you." Alarmed, Espinosa hid behind
the concrete wall enclosing the office of the desk sergeant. A short while
later, he emerged from his hiding place with his left arm extended with palm
facing forward and his right arm behind his left arm with palm also facing
forward as if to cover his chest. While in that defenseless position, accused-appellant
shot him on the chest causing him to fall to the ground. Kilayko rushed towards
Espinosa but accused-appellant aimed a pistol at him saying, "You
also!" This prompted Kilayko to run inside the police station and ask
for help.
Accused-appellant, however, denied having
intentionally killed Espinosa. On the contrary, he averred that Espinosa’s
death was purely accidental. According to him, Espinosa arrived at the police
station at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of December 31, 1987 and berated
him. He asked Espinosa why he was running after him, whereupon Espinosa
immediately grabbed the armalite rifle that was lying on the table of the desk
sergeant. They grappled for possession of the rifle and in the process, the
rifle fired and Espinosa was hit on the chest. When he saw Kilayko rushing
towards Espinosa, he aimed his service pistol at him and Kilayko immediately
retreated to where he came from.
The trial court did not give credence to the
version of the defense. It ratiocinated that the killing of Espinosa could not
have been accidental considering the nature of the wounds sustained by the
victim. Relying on the medical findings of Dr. Jose Rafio who autopsied the
body of the deceased, the trial court concluded that the victim could not have
been shot while grappling for possession of the armalite. The wounds sustained
by Espinosa on his hands indicated that he was raising his hands as if to cover
his body when he was shot. Indeed, had accused-appellant grabbed and held the
muzzle or barrel of the armalite rifle, his hands could not have been hit.
Besides, it would have been highly improbable for the victim to grab the muzzle
of the gun instead of its butt considering his knowledge and experience with
firearms considering that he was a retired colonel of the defunct Philippine
Constabulary.
Acctmisx
The trial court likewise found the location
of the brown envelope which Espinosa brought with him when he came to the
police station as another telling point against the testimony of
accused-appellant. The trial court held that if indeed accused-appellant and
the victim were grappling for possession of the armalite rifle, the envelope
would not have remained tucked under his arm. The trial court held thus -
"Evidence
unrefuted shows that when the victim was fired upon, the said envelope was
still tucked under his arm and as such was smeared with the victim’s blood. It
is very unlikely for the victim not to have lost hold of the brown envelope
considering that he grappled for possession of the said armalite rifle.
Expectedly, the victim could have resorted to forceful, sudden and jerky
movements to gain possession of the rifle and in the process extended his arms
over the cement division causing the brown envelope to fall. This not having
been so when it was expected under the circumstances, belies the fact that
‘grappling’ indeed preceded the explosion."[1]
The trial court likewise ruled that
treachery attended the commission of the crime. It found that -
"The
prosecution has proven that all three wounds, on both hands and on the chest,
of the victim were caused by a single bullet. This fact establishes a clear
picture of the victim raising his hands, placing the same one after the other,
before or in front of and at the level of his chest, most probably, to ward off
the shot. In the case of People v. Castro, (G.R. No. L-20555 and L-21449, June
30, 1967), the Supreme Court ruled:
‘Where the victim
was shot when his hands were raised, to show that he would not fight, or
because of fright or to try to ward off the shots that were to come, he was
clearly in a defenseless position. This circumstance constitutes treachery.’ Misactx
"The victim
was unarmed and defenseless. All that he had with him was the brown envelope
which contained the supposed complaints to be filed against the accused in
relation to the indiscriminate firing and pistol whipping incidents allegedly
committed by the latter the day prior to the fatal incident. The fact,
moreover, that powder burns were found on the hands of the victim confirmed
that the victim was shot at close range thus making it more difficult if not
impossible for the victim to avoid that shot or to afford himself some kind of
protection. It may be said that the victim was utterly defenseless leaving
himself with no other choice but to use his hands to ward off the bullet in
desperation. In view of the aforecited ruling in relation to the foregoing
fact, this Court believes that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was
attendant and that the same has been duly proven as a fact."[2]
Having found that treachery attended the
killing, the trial court sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 and P43,060.00
for burial and funeral expenses.[3]
Accused-appellant is now before this Court
with the following submissions:
1.......THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
ACCUSED INTENTIONALLY FIRED AT THE VICTIM AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO THE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER PAR. 4, ART. 12 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
2.......THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER QUALIFIED BY
TREACHERY.[4]
Accused-appellant argues that the trial
court delved into the realm of speculation when it concluded that accused-appellant
intentionally fired at the victim. He insists that the deceased sustained
bullet wounds on both his hands "when the hands of the victim released the
barrel of the armalite rifle when it fired by reason of the pulling towards
each other by the accused-appellant and the victim of the said firearm."[5]
Appellant’s argument has no merit. This
Court agrees with the trial court’s finding that accused-appellant and the
victim did not grapple for possession of the armalite rifle. First: The
location and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim support the theory of
the prosecution that accused-appellant aimed the rifle at the deceased while
the latter was in a standing position with his left arm slightly extended and
his right arm behind his left arm and both palms raised as if to cover his
chest. The bullet which pierced the chest wall of the deceased was the same
bullet which wounded the hands of the deceased. Second: The deceased and
accused-appellant could not have been in the act of grappling for possession
when the rifle was fired. Before he was hit, the deceased first hid behind the
cemented wall enclosing the office of the desk sergeant. While he was in hiding
and after he emerged from his hiding place, the brown envelope which he brought
to the police station was still tucked under his arm. Even after he fell to the
ground when he was hit, the envelope remained there although smeared with
blood. Third: It would be highly inconceivable for a retired PC colonel
to hold the barrel of the gun pointing towards him while grappling for its
possession.
Sdjad
Further, accused-appellant assails the trial
court when it gave credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
Joel Kilayko and PO3 Felicito Sandoval.
It is settled jurisprudence that the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and
expertise of the trial courts. Absent any showing of abuse of discretion or
that trial courts overlooked material and relevant facts which could affect the
outcome of the case, their findings are accorded great weight and respect.
In the case at bar, this Court finds no
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Neither did he overlook
material and relevant facts. In fact, his findings are supported by
uncontroverted physical evidence as well as the autopsy report. Therefore, the
factual findings of the trial court shall remain undisturbed.
Not even the so-called inconsistencies
alleged by accused-appellant could discredit the trial court’s factual
findings. In fact, closer examination reveals that these are not
inconsistencies at all. The same refer to irrelevant and trivial matters and
would not in any way change the conclusion that accused-appellant intentionally
killed his victim. Specifically, the so-called inconsistencies mentioned by
accused-appellant referred merely to: (a) the distance between prosecution
witness Kilayko and the victim; (b) whether Capt. Artuz disarmed
accused-appellant after he shot his victim; (c) the number of persons inside
the office of the desk sergeant when the fatal shooting occurred; (d) the
number of gunshots fired; and (e) the location of the armalite rifle before it
was grabbed by accused-appellant. Sppedsc
Accused-appellant maintains that if indeed
he was intent on killing the victim, he could have used the service pistol
tucked in his waist instead of the armalite rifle. Appellant’s submission is
equally without merit. Evidence shows that the deceased died in the hands of
accused-appellant using the armalite rifle.
Finally, this Court agrees with the findings
of the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The
deceased did not expect any attack coming from the accused-appellant when he
went to the police station that fatal morning of December 31, 1987. All he
wanted was to file a complaint against accused-appellant, a copy of which was
placed inside the envelope tucked under his arm. Treachery may still be
appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person.
What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[6] The victim was totally defenseless when he went out
of his hiding place. He was 71 years old at the time of his death. His left
hand was extended as if in supplication and surrender but accused-appellant
shot him nonetheless. The victim immediately died from the gunshot wound.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Br. 36, Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 37116, finding
accused-appellant Edwin Tanoy guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Ricardo L.
Espinosa P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P43,060.00 as burial and funeral
expenses, is AFFIRMED. With costs.
SO ORDERED. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.